Last-minute vote: What Referendum 1 means for the tunnel

Updated 11:54 pm, Thursday, August 11, 2011

The Seattle skyline is shown beyond the upper deck of the Alaskan Way Viaduct on March 19.

The Seattle skyline is shown beyond the upper deck of the Alaskan Way Viaduct on March 19.

Photo: Joshua Trujillo/seattlepi.com

Image 3 of 3

Equipment is being used to build a new elevated section of Highway 99 along the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Equipment is being used to build a new elevated section of Highway 99 along the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Photo: Joshua Trujillo, Seattlepi.com

Last-minute vote: What Referendum 1 means for the tunnel

1 / 3

Back to Gallery

Confused by the meaning of Seattle's upcoming vote on the planned tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct? With less than a week until the Aug. 16 vote, here are a few things last-minute voters should know about Referendum 1.

Is this an up-or-down vote on whether the viaduct is replaced with a deep-bore tunnel?

No, the vote has no legal bearing on the state's plan to build a $1.9 billion, 1.7-mile long tunnel in place of the viaduct. (The entire viaduct replacement is $3.1 billion). State lawmakers and transportation officials say they don't intend to revisit the tunnel decision, no matter the outcome. Still, the vote will be seen as a gauge of public opinion. Organizers of the Protect Seattle Now campaign, which opposes the tunnel, hope the vote will demonstrate to pro-tunnel city councilmembers and state leaders that the tunnel project is contrary to public opinion.

So what does Referendum 1 mean?

Referendum 1 has to do with a small section in a series of agreements between the state and the City Council regarding construction of the deep-bore tunnel. The agreements deal with who's responsible during construction for utility design, utility relocation, property issues, environmental remediation, design review, permitting, and construction and coordination.

The City Council approved the agreements 8-1 over a veto from Mayor Mike McGinn, a tunnel oppponent. Not giving up, tunnel opponents collected enough signatures -- 28,929 in a month -- to force a public vote. The city sued, and a judge ruled that only a narrow portion, known as "Section 6," could be subject to referendum. Section 6 reads like gobbledygook, but it essentially dictates how the City Council can give a final thumbs-up to the state on proceeding with final design and construction once the tunnel project's environmental review is complete.

What would an 'approve' vote mean?

It would authorize the council to give the go-ahead at a public hearing without having to vote on another ordinance, giving WSDOT a seamless start to the project. As the judge said during the legal fight over Referendum 1, it will be "a decision about how you're going to make the decision about whether to have a tunnel or not."

What would a "reject" vote mean?

If voters reject the referendum, then the council would have to pass another ordinance. A subsequent ordinance would be subject to Mayor McGinn's veto and another possible referendum. While the council seems firmly in favor of the tunnel, those who oppose the project hope a thumbs-down on the referendum might change a few more minds if councilmembers see they stand against public opinion. Since the viaduct serves a state highway, WSDOT could assert its state power and move forward with the project regardless. But doing so without the city's blessing would delay the project and add more costs.

Why approve Referendum 1?

The prevailing message from tunnel supporters: It's been 10 years since the Nisqually earthquake, why risk more delay? They say the tunnel solution was reached after countless public hearings, stakeholder meetings and environmental reviews, and that it's time to end the debate. The viaduct carries 110,000 vehicles per day. The tunnel preserves capacity for that traffic, which is best for freight movement and gives the city its best shot at building a "world-class" waterfront park along Alaskan Way, they say. WSDOT cautions that any further delay could add millions to the price tag. Let's Move Forward's website has more information about the pro-tunnel campaign.

Why reject Referendum 1?

The tunnel will be the largest deep-bore tunnel yet constructed in the world and is the most expensive viaduct replacement option. It would rely on $400 million in toll revenue. As the state's own studies conclude, tolls ($4-$5 at peak hours) would cause more than half of current viaduct users to choose other routes, creating more congestion on Seattle city streets and Interstate 5. As opponents point out, $1.9 billion is a lot of money for a project that is expected to make downtown traffic worse. State and city officials say they have five years to figure out how to handle diversion, but critics wonder whether there will be money for mitigation. Mayor McGinn and City Councilmember Mike O'Brien are among advocates for investing in better transit and less expensive improvements to city streets and I-5 instead.

There's also that provision in state law that says Seattle would have to cover cost overruns, although the governor and attorney general say it's unenforceable. Still, the tunnel will be bored through abrasive soil conditions, increasing the chance it will go over budget. Protect Seattle Now's website has more information from the anti-tunnel campaign.